Christian Ruck wrote:One explanation that I could understand is, that auto-matching simply does different things / transformations than what is possible with manual corrections. That could lead to different results. Still, not ideal in my case, but understandable.
yes, it's indeed very hard to guess, what kind of processing is really going on inside resolves color checker automatism?
all this other solutions, which i mentioned, are just based on optimizing simple 3x3 color matrices for this purpose. that's a quite common operation for this kind of color corrections, which usually doesn't show much unpredictable side effects or variation between different implementations. it's a very useful elementary operation, which doesn't cause destruction and is even reversible in principle. but for sure, it's not the only way to handle such a task. you could also optimize some kind of intermediate 3D LUTs in a very similar fashion. that's, how it's usually done in case of camera profiling etc, -- but again: this doesn't make much sense in conjunction with CC24 color targets and a very small amount of available control points -- for this reason i don't see, why resolve should choose such a more complex and practically inadequate form of realization?
Christian Ruck wrote:I would still like to use the auto match function, because to me, the results look more realistic (except banding of course). But this might remain wishful thinking.
that's a perfectly reasonable desire! i also like this kind of tools, which solve complex tasks in a manageable simple and user friendly manner. resolve is in general a really nice and efficient tool in this respect. but as much as i enjoy this kind of easiness in practical work, just like everyone else, i also like to understand, what's really going on inside. it's often quite useful, if you are able to comprehend the actual processing at least in a vague theoretical approximation.this kind of of insight is simply indispensable for adequate decision making or finding workarounds for minor deficiencies in given software. that's unfortunately an aspect, where resolve isn't always very helpful and commendable. while it's always becoming more and more attractive for mainstream end users and their practical needs, this kind of technical transparency and comprehensibility by versed experts is increasingly vanishing. this may not be in an important point for the majority of customers, but i somehow feel a little bit uncomfortable about this tendency. your actual presumptions about the color checker features, are indeed a very well demonstration for this fundamental issue. i guess, there will be hardly anybody here in this forum -- except the application developers -- able to explain, how this tool actually works and what consequences this may have in practice...
but i again: don't spend to much time and expectations on this stupid color checker gimmick!
it's much more important, to get better results out of your camera!
any DP has to learn and gather experiences, how to choose the most optimal settings for some equipment and shooting conditions. and that's often an iterative process, which also includes less satisfaying results and pitfalls. it's just important, to keep you eyes open, stay learning and strive for better results!